Official Multiplayer Discussion Thread

Official Multiplayer Discussion Thread

Multiplayer in Galactic Civilizations II is commonly discussed. You can read HERE the rationale as to why it wasn't part of the base game.

This thread has been created so that people can discuss multiplayer in a single place. Multiplayer will not be added as part of some update (or "patch"). There has been discussion of having it be in some future "Ultimate" edition of the game (i.e. in the future) once the Stardock multiplayer libraries for Society are completed.

Please do not create additional threads on the topic of multiplayer unless there is something new to add that isn't contained herein. Thank you!

If it is to be an expansion, please make it a seperate one with no additional single player content

I agree with Magnumaniac. Multiplayer doesn't mean much to me with regards to this game, whether I have an internet connection or not(hee hee). Judging from the posts there are alot of people who do want it however. The idea of a seperate expansion which wouldn't include single player content would work fine in my opinion.

Kyro, may I suggest you sticky this and the carrier dead horse thread to ensure (as much as possible) no more threads get started on the topic?

As far as my opinion goes - I am supremely ambivalent about MP for GalCiv. Actually, whether or not I got it would depend on an earnest desire on the part of family to try and beat me at it head to head...

SrGalen seems to share my core POV on the matter. I know a few folks who might be able to talk me into a multiplayer game (and associated costs), but the MMO thing will likely remain a turnoff until AI components are frighteningly sophisticated (meaning I don't want to mess around with some unsupervised horde-of-idiots version of a good 4X game).

p.s. Re "MMO," I admit that I've been decreasingly interested in online games since the rise of the consumer Internet (yes, I'm that old--anyone else ever put a handset in a modem cradle?), but I'm also seriously fascinated by South Park's recent engagement with World of Warcraft. A great game should not force one to need a mother like Eric Cartman has

I've played GalCiv II now for months to the point I find no challenge in it as have all my family and friends. Our only real enjoyment at this point is arguing whos methods and tactics are the better. I didnt mind single player only when I purchased it but at this point the game is shelved until I have that ability. I have no interest in playing Joe Schmuck off the net I want to play my friends at the lan party in the next room.

Hi. My name is Joe Schmuck. Pleased to meet you all. If I may, I'd like to address the rumors of my uninteresting gameplay on the net. As I'm sure you're all aware, what with the media blitz and pundit pseudo-intellectual satirical expositions, some unscrupulous persons have started a hate campaign against me, accusing me of such unsubstantiated and alleged crimes such as the afforementioned "uninteresting" game play. I ask that you do not judge me by the color of my skins, the size of my hardware, or my deeply held strategic beliefs. I have a dream, that one day, people of vastly different opinions on mods, tactics, and aesthetic starship design can come metaphorically together in one place, in mutual respect, then try to desperately and utterly destroy one another. I think it's just as important to reduce to rubble the fragile ego of some nameless clownshoe on the net who thought he was good, as it is to do it to your best friends who thought they might be cool. Let's end the hate... or... wait a sec... ummmm... or maybe... start it??? Uh... what was I talking about?

This community is rather insular and I'm not surprised internal polling didn't turn up big pro-multiplayer figures, particularly after the devs relished pooping all over the idea ("Well, if we implemented multiplayer, we wouldn't be able to program game saving/loading!", or whatever the nonsense was). Don't know how many others who were very interested in multiplayer have stuck around with the community after all this time. I know I almost never post or play anymore (and won't be spending money on the Expansion... the game is fine for me as it is, as a intermittent sandbox mode diversion; nothing really compelling is going to be added).

AI will never compete with humans, ever. The cheating -- sorry, bonuses -- the AI gets at higher levels is the obvious concession to this fact. And I rarely play against anonymous opponents - family, friends, and guildies from other games would be my primary antagonists. Probably the same for most others. So the social aspect decried by the anti-MP individuals is immaterial to the debate.

As for feature losses - I never play storyline or scripted games. Why do those who hate the idea of multiplayer get to demand that they not spend money on a multiplayer feature, while I get to spend money on expansions that contain all this story I have no interest in?

As for feature losses - I never play storyline or scripted games. Why do those who hate the idea of multiplayer get to demand that they not spend money on a multiplayer feature, while I get to spend money on expansions that contain all this story I have no interest in?

Question: Did you buy the game?

If yes> Then obviosly something attracted you

If no> You have nothing to worry about.

On a side note; I think an option between the two would be nice; but more of a configuration feature like say during the install "Would you like the Multiplayer button visible?" and a sort of 'Option' to toggle it on and off; and the same thing to be said for offline-play. So an offline player would not have to bother with even thinking about the online players and visa versa.

Personally I'm anti-multiplayer. Too many times have I played an online game with some online person or whatever get called a cheater whined at and complained at; what I'm trying to say is that my experiences on multi-player are less than satisfying. Hopefully though there are some who will never stop enjoying it

I bought the game expecting, eventually, multiplayer would be added, like what every. other. turn-based strategy game had. I knew GC1 didn't have it, but, honestly, that game was fairly ghetto in a few areas but spectacular in others (beyond MOO3 as far as I was concerned).

It would be lose-lose for Stardock if they spent resources on multiplayer and tried to sell it as a single-feature expansion to appease the rabid anti-MP crowd, from a simple economic and marketing point of view. As for people with mental health issues who do not even want to know that the game they play even has a multiplayer feature, I'm not qualified to respond to that.

From what I gather Stardock might get arround to getting MP for GC2 last I saw there was a poll on who would want MP as a feature or expansion or whatever; even though I voted as "No" it still seemed to say that most people would.

They've said "No promises" ; probably because they work extremely hard on their various projects and support. Though I wouldn't doubt that it's a big possibility

Hot Seat would not take any longer than CivIII or Heros of Might and Magic.WAN or LAN capability would be good, with about the same playing time above.and playing by eMail would be great -

Wouldn't those games take longer than a chess match with a pen-pal in Antarctica?

1st off you only move one piece at a time in chess it would be different if you were taking care of 20 planets and dozens of fleets. With battles going on all around you - I think that would be the ultimate war game.

I support multiplayer, but I want some sort of roleplaying thing in my games. I remember playing a Civ3 game once, someone was about to annhialate me but I cut a deal with him: I will be his servant country, In a way. He agreed, and we were allies. Twas awesome. Mostly, people would just play a super small 2 minute game. What about massive sized worlds? I want a 10 hour game, people.

I've played multi-player 4x games. They are a lot of fun. Here is what is not fun.

- Drop-out players- Angry, foul-mouthed players- Experienced players who pass themselves off as beginners- Beginners who get pissed when they don't sweep everyone the first time out of the gate- Players who spend hours finding exploits in the game system so they can "cheat" themselves to victory, using the excuse that it is the fault of the developers for having poorly programmed security algorithms- Players who have multiple, on-line personalities so they can form up "alliances" with themselves- Players who form pre-game alliances that other players don't know about- Players who have the knowledge and the time to figure out cheats with hex editors, modifying the game files used in PBEM games- Hackers who successfully invade MMO servers- Players who try to slip trojans to opposing players so they can investigate the opposition. "They use spies in real life, don't they?"

Then it becomes a never-ending cycle. The players rant about the inadequate security for multi-player. The developers publish security patches. The hackers develop new attacks. The players rant ...

I completely understand the desire to play multi-player. I played it for years. I also completely understand why Stardock is skittish about getting into the multi-player developer cycle.

Here's is hoping you all get what you want, and less than you deserve.

I've seen a lot of complaints regarding the idea of multiplayer in that it would take an incredibly long amount of time waiting for everyone to take their turn. I believe I have a solution. What if everyone moved at the same time, and once everyone was done with the turn, it went to the next? It doesn't seem that unfeasible to me. You'd have everyone going at the same time while perfectly maintaining the turn-based style. I also noticed someone complain about having to wait for people to design their ships. The solution to that should be obvious. Allow players to create a set of ships that goes with their team, and the different ships become available as technology is researched. You could even allow for the review of production queues whilst other players are finishing the turn. IMO, this game should have shipped with multiplayer. As a matter of fact, I bought it under the impression that it did, seeing as how every other PC game that I have ever bought has had multiplayer, and I didnt see a huge WARNING: THIS GAME DOES NOT HAVE MULTIPLAYER written on the box. I almost had a heart attack when I found out that it didn't. What replay value could a game have without multiplayer? Warcraft III would be completely off my playlist if it didnt have multiplayer, which I play, like, every day. I may be wrong in saying that it wouldn't seem too difficult to implement, but it didn't seem to me that they were pulling a whole lot of teeth in order to put a multiplayer in Civ4... On a side note, I think it would be awesome if the fleet battles were a little more RTS-esque (eg allow for control of the ships individual ships and maybe have special abilities from parts placed on the ships). In conclusion, I would pay for a multiplayer expansion, but honestly, I'm pretty bummed out that my original $40 investment did not supply me with one.

Hello Coçnsurning the multiplayer game i would be verry intrested in it and i can asure you there are a lot of my palls that owuld be intrested in it to so lets say that they fix it how would i know when it is out ?this might be a silly quistion but then again there arent silly quistion only silly ansers

It would be lose-lose for Stardock if they spent resources on multiplayer and tried to sell it as a single-feature expansion to appease the rabid anti-MP crowd, from a simple economic and marketing point of view. As for people with mental health issues who do not even want to know that the game they play even has a multiplayer feature, I'm not qualified to respond to that.

Let's turn that around: it would be a lose-lose for Starock if they tried to force their existing customers to subsidise a feature they don't want to appease the rabid pro-MP crowd.

When I want to play alongside other people, I log into EVE-Online, which was designed from the beginning specifically as a multiplayer game. Oddly enough it's not that great as a single-player experience. I wonder if one might draw some kind of analogy with that...?

As far as multiplayer is concerned, I'm not against the idea per se, and if a fairly simple, non-intrusive hotseat version was implimented I guess I'd be pretty pleased and would probably even try it once or twice, but it's just that I want the smartest, sneakest most vindictive AI possible, so I grudge every application of dev resources not spent on it. Galciv2 is there for when I don't feel like dealing with other people, and it's the best game I know of for doing that. Putting a hammerhead on the end of a screwdriver will mean you can hammer nails with a screwdriver; would you buy one?

A turn-based multiplayer game seems feasible to me. Personally I would make use of an email-type devilery system for my opponents 'turn'. Actually 'loading' the player's turn should be extremely easy.

If player A performs a turn and clicks to end the turn then a file is generated containing the information. This is then sent via email, or protocol if you can be bothered, to player B. Player B then 'loads' player A's turn into GalCiv2 and watches the 'enemy' make his move. Player B then takes their turn, ends their turn and another file is generated for transmission to player A. This is not hard to program - maybe a day or two of coding including the validation?

Perhaps the problem relates to the ability to prevent cheating - even if the other player's file is validated to ensure that their moves are valid is would almost certainly be possible for an unscrupulous player to 'cheat' and find the location and composition of the enemy forces...

Of course it wouldn't bother me as I know that the people I'd play wouldn't cheat and if they did they'd know they'd not beaten me fairly... This probably wouldn't translate well to playing with people you don't know...